From: galactus@htmlhelp.com (Arnoud "Galactus" Engelfriet)
To: www-html@w3.org
Subject: Cougar Critique - frames WD
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 20:46:34 +0100
Message-ID: <aqVRz4uYO5xK089yn@htmlhelp.com>
Things like "This example shows the HTML source to achieve the layout
below using frames." make me feel very uneasy - wasn't HTML supposed
to be device-independent?
This attitude echoes through the entire frames working draft. Nowhere,
except in little comments about downlevel browsers and the likes,
does it discuss things in the abstraction that I'm used to in, say,
the 3.2 PR or the 2.0 spec. "Frames divide a browser window".
Doesn't this kind of device-specific language clearly indicate how
ill thought-out this NS hack actually is? What happened to the various
"frame-based layout through CSS" drafts?
The "Frame document structure" section mentions that FRAMESET replaces
BODY, yet below the suggestion is made that BODY can come after FRAMESET
to provide alternative content.
NORESIZE is evil. It should *never* be possible for an author to
disable features on a client. Similar for SCROLLING.
The draft does not specify what should happen if a browser cannot
create a new window, as "requested" by a TARGETed link with a new
frame name.
The phrase "frameset parent" is not defined anywhere. This makes it
very hard to understand the meaning of the "_parent" reserved target
value.
And finally, could W3C drafts *please* refrain from giving things like
"Upgrade your browser" as suggested alternative content for frames,
java or images?
--
E-mail: galactus@htmlhelp.com .................... PGP Key: 512/63B0E665
Maintainer of WDG's HTML reference: <http://www.htmlhelp.com/reference/>